W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > April 2011

RE: SPARQL 1.1 Federation Extensions

From: william greenly <william_greenly@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:23:03 +0100
Message-ID: <BAY146-w1071D95538281AFC7FD36385A50@phx.gbl>
To: <cbuil@fi.upm.es>
CC: <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>

Dear Carlos
 
Can of worms eh? In all seriousness it would be a very useful feature to have, but does obviously raise questions around consistency. Think it is something the group will have to confront at some time and I would be happy to assist in providing real life use cases for the WG.
 
Either way, I acknowledge that the comment has been answered.
 
Many Thanks,
 
William Greenly
Volkswagen UK Technical Lead
 


Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:12:37 +0100
From: cbuil@fi.upm.es
To: william_greenly@hotmail.com
CC: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: SPARQL 1.1 Federation Extensions



Dear William, 
Currently, the Working Group has no plans to extend the federation extension to cover SPARQL update. There are several challenges with federated update that lead the group to conclude that the area is not yet mature enough for standardization. 
The main problem of using the federation extension with update (and other extensions) is that you always rely in the remote server capabilities like security issues. Such security issues may involve security certificates or HTTP access and authorization. If HTTP access is used, credentials have to be sent and the SERVICE operator currently does not support that. 
Another issue is the purpose of updating multiple updated endpoints. Then the operation may as well be executed as a set of separate operations. SPARQL has no concept of transactions, meaning that there can't be any guarantee of integrity across endpoints no matter what we do. It could be argued that the WHERE clause could be resolved into a single image that is used for consistent updates across stores, which may make integrity more likely, but it still can't be guaranteed. 
We would be grateful if you would acknowledge that your comment has been answered by sending a reply to this mailing list. 
Carlos, on behalf of the SPARQL-WG 

On 14/03/2011 12:11, william greenly wrote: 


Are there any plans to extend federation extensions to cover SPARQL Update.
 
For nearly every example in the SPARQL Update WD, I can see a way to incorporate federation extensions e.g:
 
PREFIX dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
INSERT DATA { 
 SERVICE <http://example1/sparql> {
  GRAPH <http://example1/bookStore> { 
   <http://example/book3>  dc:title  "Fundamentals of Compiler Design" 
  } 
  GRAPH <http://example1/bookstore2> { 
   <http://example/book3>  dc:title  "Fundamentals of Compiler Design" 
  } 
  GRAPH <http://example1/bookstore3> { 
   <http://example/book3>  dc:title  "Fundamentals of Compiler Design" 
  } 
 }
 SERVICE <http://example2/sparql> {
  GRAPH <http://example2/shop> { 
   <http://example/book3>  dc:title  "Fundamentals of Compiler Design" 
  } 
  GRAPH <http://example2/shop2> { 
   <http://example/book3>  dc:title  "Fundamentals of Compiler Design" 
  } 
 }
}

I am sure the benefits would be huge.
 
Many Thanks,
 
William Greenly
Volkswagen UK Technical Lead

 		 	   		  
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 April 2011 17:23:33 GMT